Please note this application is under active development. If you spot any errors or something isn't working, please contact us at evidence.service@wales.nhs.uk.

Interventions to reduce tobacco use in people experiencing homelessness

Vijayaraghavan M et al (2020)

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews - 10.1002/14651858.CD013413.pub2.

Evidence Categories

  • Care setting: Community setting
  • Population group: Adults
  • Population group: Homeless
  • Intervention: Multicomponent Interventions
  • Intervention: Other Psychosocial Therapies
  • Intervention: Cognitive Behaviour Therapy
  • Intervention: Self-Help Materials
  • Intervention: Behaviour Support
  • Intervention: Nicotine Replacement Therapy
  • Outcome: Smoking cessation
  • Outcome: Smoking Quit Attempts

Type of Evidence

Systematic Review

Aims

To assess whether interventions designed to improve access to tobacco cessation interventions for adults experiencing homelessness leadto increased numbers engaging in or receiving treatment, and whether interventions designed to help adults experiencing homelessnessto quit tobacco lead to increased tobacco abstinence. To also assess whether tobacco cessation interventions for adults experiencinghomelessness affect substance use and mental health.

Findings

10 studies were indetified involving 1634 participants who smoked combustible tobacco at enrolment. One of the studies was ongoing. Most of the trials included participants who were recruited from community-based sites such as shelters, and three included participants whowere recruited from clinics. The authors judged three studies to be at high risk of bias in one or more domains. The authors identified low-certainty evidence,limited by imprecision, that contingent reinforcement (rewards for successful smoking cessation) plus usual smoking cessation care was not more effective than usual care alone in promoting abstinence (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.16 to 2.77; 1 trial, 70 participants). The authors identified very low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias and imprecision, that more intensive behavioral smoking cessation support was more effective than brief intervention in promoting abstinence at six-month follow-up (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.69; 3 trials, 657 participants; I2 =0%). There was low-certainty evidence, limited by bias and imprecision, that multi-issue support (cessation support that also encompassed help to deal with other challenges or addictions) was not superior to targeted smoking cessation support in promoting abstinence (RR 0.95,95% CI 0.35 to 2.61; 2 trials, 146 participants; I2 = 25%). More data on these types of interventions are likely to change our interpretation ofthese data. Single studies that examined the effects of text-messaging support, e-cigarettes, or cognitive behavioral therapy for smoking cessation provided inconclusive results. Data on secondary outcomes, including mental health and substance use severity, were too sparse to draw any meaningful conclusions on whether there were clinically-relevant differences. The authors did not identify any studies that explicitly assessed interventions to increase access to tobacco cessation care; they were therefore unable to assess our secondary outcome ‘number of participants receiving treatment'.

Conclusions

There is insufficient evidence to assess the effects of any tobacco cessation interventions specifically in people experiencing homelessness. Although there was some evidence to suggest a modest benefit of more intensive behavioral smoking cessation interventions when compared to less intensive interventions, our certainty in this evidence was very low, meaning that further research could either strengthen or weaken this effect. There is insufficient evidence to assess whether the provision of tobacco cessation support and its effects on quit attempts has any effect on the mental health or other substance-use outcomes of people experiencing homelessness. Although there isno reason to believe that standard tobacco cessation treatments work any differently in people experiencing homelessness than in the general population, these findings highlight a need for high-quality studies that address additional ways to engage and support people experiencing homelessness, in the context of the daily challenges they face. These studies should have adequate power and put effort into retaining participants for long-term follow-up of at least six months. Studies should also explore interventions that increase access to cessation services, and address the social and environmental influences of tobacco use among people experiencing homelessness. Finally, studies should explore the impact of tobacco cessation on mental health and substance-use outcomes.

Also In This Category